Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

How do the OO reject Orthodox ecclesiology? At least they haven't set up for themselves an "infallible" pontiff.

Logged

That is the land of lost content, I see it shining plain, The happy highways where I went And cannot come again.-A.E. Housman

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

Oriental Orthodoxy - the same spirituality (feasts and fasts, some prayers and hymnography the same, similarities in the celebration and perceiving of the Divine Liturgy) and (maybe for some controversial) the faith.

As for me the, difference is based only in the history: Ecumenical Councils and saints.EO and OO for me are just two branches of the same Christian faith - Orthodoxy.

Roman Catholicism has changed the faith and the meaning and importance of the feasts a lot, forgotten about fasting, laxed fasting and prayer rules, shorten services. RC spirituality is very based on some strange revelations and one man - Roman pope. It also tries to perceive and describe Divine things in human way (I mean law, they try to call all things). All this stuff is strange for EO as OO.

Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils. Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities. Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils. Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities. Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,habte selassie

That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1. Three councils in common (43%)2. Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1. Seven councils in common (33%)2. Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. . . .

Yes, even Grillmeier in his magnum opus "Christ in Christian Tradition" raises questions about how shared the shared Christological vision is between the Greek East and the Latin West.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.

As is worthwhile to ask, given some of the controversies that have arisen between the two (e.g., the "f" word...no, not that f word, the other one). It is not terribly uncommon to hear some EO, though usually dismissed as polemical, openly question the RC understanding of Christ and the Holy Trinity as a whole, given some of the theological wanderings that have been dogmatized by the RCC. Truth be told, it often doesn't seem the same to me, either, at least not between Latins and EO.

Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters. Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 04:59:15 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

The thing about the RC division from the EO is that a shared Christological definition or some kind of vague cultural heritage (as though the Alexandrian Fathers didn't write in Greek!) is not enough to make similar once again the fundamental dissimilarities that are characteristic of the relation between the RC and the EO. Similarly, there are many who feel on the OO side (I can't speak for EOs, obviously) that the lack of a shared Christological definition cannot obscure the fundamental similarities between them and the EO. So looking at councils, etc. can be a little misleading, if we're talking about lived experience of the faith (cf. the EPs famous "Phos Hilarion" address at Georgetown some years ago) and who feels most comfortable in whose churches. Not to leave too much up to personal opinion, but if I were to visit my family back home in Northern California, where there is no OO church, I would certainly go to the local EO churches ten times over before I would ever consider even stepping foot into an RC church (which I'm pretty sure would be actively discouraged by the people here, given the strong reaction they already had when I mentioned possibly going to an EO church for their Nativity service).

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins. However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today

Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:06:21 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters. Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion? But I digress...

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins. However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today

As an Eastern Catholic I do not think I agree. I would say that the newer Roman liturgy (when it is celebrated well - i.e., without clowns and other bizarre things) has more in common with the Byzantine liturgy. It does lack solemnity in most cases, but it is still closer to the Byzantine liturgy than the Tridentine (codification) of the Roman Mass.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils. Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities. Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,habte selassie

That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1. Three councils in common (43%)2. Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1. Seven councils in common (33%)2. Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Sometimes Westerners forget that the Fathers at Chalcedon refused to make Leo's Tome the dogmatic horos of the council, and that the Tome was sent to a committee of bishops before being approved because of some problematic statements made in the letter, and that the approval given was contingent upon reading the Tome in the light of St. Cyril's letters. Also there is a tendency for the West to downplay the Fifth Ecumenical Council's importance, but it was at that council that Chalcedon was definitively given a Cyrillian interpretation (see in particular canon seven of that council).

Yes, yes. That is indeed a point I have heard raised in OO apologetics: If Chalcedon were so clearly the statement of Orthodoxy (such that non-Chalcedonians could have all kinds of evil and hubris ascribed to them for stubbornly refusing it without reason), then why was another council called to clarify how it should be interpreted in an Orthodox fashion? But I digress...

In my opinion Constantinople II (AD 553) was convened for two reasons in particular: (1) to try and heal the rupture between the Miaphysites and the Chalcedonians by assuring the Miaphysites of the Cyrillian nature of Chalcedon, and (2) because the West often tended to make the two natures of Christ subjects of predication and that ultimately ends in a Nestorian Christology, and that is why the Council issued the anathemas against the "Three Chapters."

Should Westerners downplay the fifth council, that is only more evidence of how far there is to go before RC and EO can see one another in each other's churches, something which does not require quite so much strain when it comes to OO visiting EO or vice-versa.

Agreed.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:21:36 PM by Apotheoun »

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

Agreed, but that is in the contemporary sense hence why I mentioned how Vatican II removed the cultural and liturgical familiarity between the EO and the Latins. However and again, before this change I think its safe to say that we Orthodox experientially speaking, would not feel as foreign in a Latin Mass as we would today

That is irrelevant, as Vatican II was not even close to the start of the division that eventually solidified (for convenience's sake) in 1054. The Vatican was wrong in 1364 just as it was wrong in 1964, and is wrong in 2012. The fact that it seems to be drifting even further away is problematic, but to hear self-proclaimed Latin "Traditionalists" tell it, getting rid of VII would heal the world and realign the planets, and we would enter into a new Edenic age, and the whole bit. That is silly. VII is not the problem, in itself. It is a symptom of a much, much deeper sickness, and laying too much of the responsibility for division at its feet would be like saying that the Titanic sunk because its deck got wet.

If anything, VII is responsible for many internal divisions and wounds within the RCC, but what do those have to do with us? To echo the point made in the other half of your reply, by that time we were long out of the picture, whether EO or OO.

Quote

Also in regards to inter Latin-Orthodox debates during the 6th-11th centuries, keep in mind that Oriental fathers were largely divorced from this process, so while indeed there were internal differences between EO and Latins, obviously such were not enough to break away, whereas consistently across the same period despite dozens of legitimate and ecumenical attempts at reunification of the OO with the Chalcedonians, alas our differences seemed to be more than the Latins hence the divide.

Yep... (I'm not sure why this point needs to be addressed directly in response to what I wrote; I didn't mention it explicitly because it is so obvious, I didn't feel it needed to be mentioned.)

Bot are inheritors of Greek-Roman civilization, philosophy, law and society. Both represent the Christian-Greek-Roman that created both the West and the East.

Non-Chalcedoneans rejected not only Orthodoxy (if not Christology, then Ecclesiology and to preserve mere wording according to some), but there was much of rejection of the Greek-Roman Empire in it as well.

The Orthodox and the RC share, at least, the realization that you simply can't go solo, although RC, of course, doesn't notice that is exactly what they have done.

Caesaropapism

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I definitely think the Byzantines are closer to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church than the RCs are.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Keep in mind that the Latin Church is Chalcedonian, and further, the Latin Church mutually share ALL Seven Councils. Some Orthodox folks have said the EO is "the Church of the Seven Councils" and in this regard, the Latins surely have a bit more in common than the Orientals do, we only acknowledge the first three, and from 500-1054 the Latins and EO were the SAME Church but the Oriental had long ago split away y'all also share more than 500 years of mutual history, mutual saints, mutual canons, mutual scandals which are literally quite foreign to us

To be sure, today I would say the OO and EO are more similar, but I would largely chock that up more so to Vatican II than any inherent similarities. Further, I consider EO to be Orthodox and OO to be Orthodox, however to be sure we definitely have a laundry list of mutual grievances between us

stay blessed,habte selassie

That is one way of looking at it, but here is another way to look at it:

Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

1. Three councils in common (43%)2. Four councils not in common (57%)

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic

1. Seven councils in common (33%)2. Fourteen councils not in common (67%)

Statistical proof that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are closer.

Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that. Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy. Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again). In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians. In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC. Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc. However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go. Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away.

Then again, we have to subtract from many of those fourteen councils that Vatican II said to ignore because the RC is now more enlightened, because of progressive dogma and all that. Contrary to those who think that the RC is further away from us as the result of Vatican II, I think that they are moving closer to Orthodoxy. Of course, the reason for this is a little scary, i.e. that there is a magesterial progression in doctrine among RC (something that in the future could move them further away, once again). In terms of soteriology and Trinitarian theology and most doctrine of God outside of the Incarnation, we are closer to non-Chalcedonians. In terms of some aspects of Incarnational theology without doubt we are closer to RC. Ecclesiologically we are closer to non-Chalcedonians on the first matters, from the basic aspect that we both agree that the Church has only one Head, and not two, or two partitioned, or two one original and another vicarious, etc. However, RC has been moving closer to Orthodoxy on ecclesiology since Vatican II, but a ways to go. Liturgically, on an official level (i.e. epiklesis, etc.) since Vatican II they are liturgically closer, but on a practical level, further away.

Thank you Father, a sound and concise analysis

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.

Difference between EO and RC councils: 20? I'm not actually sure how many RC councils are "Ecumenical".

Up until the divisive Council of Florence in the 15th century, Catholics recognized 8 ecumenical councils, the 8th being Constantinople IV. Since Florence we've had another 4 ecumenical councils (Lateran V, Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II), but then there's also the 8 councils that were elevated en masse to the status of "ecumenical council" in the 16th century (effectively back-dating the schism to the 11th century). Hence a total of 1+1+4+8 or 14 ecumenical councils that we recognize but you don't.

How concrete is this, though? Do Eastern Catholics recognize as many ecumenical councils as their Latin coreligionists? I recall the Melkites being pretty explicit about only considering 7 ecumenical councils.